VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2026Updated 30 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-49984: kestra · Path Traversal

Affects kestraSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High : upgrade to 1.3.23 or 1.0.45 soon.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.3.23, 1.0.45

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 7 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade kestra and kestra-io/kestra to 1.3.23 or 1.0.45.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
kestra-iokestra	Affected >=1.1.0 <1.3.23	Fixed in 1.3.23
kestra-iokestra	Affected <1.0.45	Fixed in 1.0.45
GitHubkestra-io/kestra`pkg:github/kestra-io/kestra`Other threats	Affected <1.0.45 <1.3.23	Fixed in 1.0.45 1.3.23

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in Kestra versions 1.0.45 and 1.3.23. Users should upgrade to at least these versions to remediate the issue. No other mitigation or temporary workaround is indicated in the available data.

Description

Kestra is an open-source, event-driven orchestration platform. Prior to 1.0.45 and 1.3.23, the local internal-storage backend validates user-supplied paths for .. traversal before it converts Windows-style backslashes to forward slashes. An attacker can therefore smuggle a traversal sequence past the guard using backslashes (..\..\..\); the guard sees a harmless string, and the path is only rewritten to ../../../ after validation, immediately before the file is opened. Any authenticated user who can view an execution (the lowest-privilege role) can call GET /api/v1/{tenant}/executions/{executionId}/file?path=… and read any file on the server filesystem readable by the Kestra process, outside the storage sandbox and across every tenant and namespace. This includes the embedded H2 database (all flows, all users, all stored secrets), internal storage of every other tenant/namespace, mounted secret files, and the process environment (/proc/self/environ) which contains configured database and secret-backend credentials. It is a complete breach of Kestra's storage isolation and multi-tenancy boundary. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.45 and 1.3.23.

Impact

An attacker with authenticated access and minimal privileges can read any file on the Kestra server filesystem that the Kestra process can access, bypassing storage sandboxing and tenant isolation. This includes exposure of all stored flows, user secrets, other tenants' data, mounted secret files, and sensitive environment variables containing credentials. This results in a complete breach of confidentiality and multi-tenancy boundaries within Kestra.

Summary

Kestra's local internal-storage backend improperly limits pathnames to a restricted directory due to validating user input for '..' traversal sequences before converting backslashes to forward slashes. This allows an attacker to use Windows-style backslashes (e.g., ..\..\..\) to bypass the traversal check. Consequently, any authenticated user with permission to view executions can call the GET /api/v1/{tenant}/executions/{executionId}/file?path= endpoint to read arbitrary files on the server filesystem accessible by the Kestra process. This includes sensitive files such as the embedded H2 database containing all flows, stored secrets, internal storage of other tenants/namespaces, mounted secret files, and the process environment file with configured credentials. This vulnerability compromises storage isolation and multi-tenancy security. The vulnerability is resolved in Kestra versions 1.0.45 and 1.3.23.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-180Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product validates input before it is canonicalized.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters (opens in a new tab)
Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/kestra-io/kestra/security/advisories/GHSA-qw4v-6w32-xx9h (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2026, 21:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-180, CWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats